THE EUCHARIST 


FOURTH TRIENNIAL CHARGE 
-TO THE CLERGY AND LAITY OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT 
a) / r BY. 
Tue Rr. Rev. A.C. A. HALL, D.D., LL.D. 
A — Pi 


\ 
DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION, 1907 


WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES hd 


tO SiGe ANS GRE EON 5+ AND EO. 
gI AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
LONDON, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 


1907 


Pamphlet Collectioa 
- Duke Divinity School 


THE EUCHARIST 


By the same Author. 


Tue Cuurcn’s DiscipLINE CONCERNING MARRIAGE aND Divorce. A charge, 1896. .25 

MarRIAGE WITH RetatTives. A charge, 1gox. .25. 

EccLesIasTIcAL DiscipLine. A charge, 1904. .25. 

Curist’s TEMPTATION AND Ours. The Baldwin Lectures, 1896. $t.co. 

Tue Use or Hoty ScripTuRE IN THE WORSHIP OF THE CHURCH. The Paddock Lec- 
tures, 1903. Wer, $1.40. 

Tue CuristTiaAn Doctrine oF Prayer. The Bohlen Lectures, 1904. Net, $x.10. 

Tue Revations oF FairH AND Lire. The Bedell Lectures, 1905. Wet, $1.00. 

Tue Example oF Our Lorp, EspEcIALLY For His Ministers. Jet, .go. 

ConrirmaTion. In the Oxford Library of Practical Theology. e+, $1.40. 

Tue Vircin MotuHer. Addresses on the Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary as told in 
the Gospels. With an Appended Essay on the Virgin Birth of Our Lord Jesus 
Christ. $1.25. 

LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. New York. 


A Companion TO THE PrayER Boox. A _ Liturgical and Spiritual Exposition 
of the Services for the Holy Communion, Morning and Evening Prayer, and 
the Litany. .45. 

THOS. NELSON & SONS. New York. 


InstRucTIONS AND DeEvoTIONs ON THE Hoty Communion. Paper, .12; cloth, .2s. 
Tue Work OF THE Hoty Spirit. .go. 

REASONABLE FaitH. Four Sermons on Fundamental Christian Doctrines. .20. 
Sevr-DisciptineE. Six Addresses. Cloth, .60; paper, .25. 


THE YOUNG CHURCHMAN CO. Milwaukee. 


Facts AFFIRMED BY THE CREED. 8vo. Wet, .10. 1906. 


E. S. GORHAM. New York. 


fA HeE EUCHARISE 


FOURTH TRIENNIAL CHARGE 


TO THE CLERGY AND LAITY OF THE DIOCESE OF VERMONT 


BY 
THE Rt. Rev. A.C. A. HALL, D.D., LL.D. 


DELIVERED AT THE ANNUAL CONVENTION, 1907 


WITH NOTES AND APPENDICES 


LONGMANS, GREEN, AND CO. 
gI AND 93 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 
LONDON, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA 


1907 


CopyricHt, 1907, BY 
A.C, A. HALL 
. ' 
Press of J. J. Little & Co. 
Astor Place, New York 


CONTENTS. 


A CHARGE. 4 - 5 ; : 4 “ : < é Buse ICs 


APPENDIX A. 


RECORD OF THE INSTITUTION (THE GREEK TEXT AS GIVEN BY 
WEstTcoTr AND Hort) : 4 : - ¢ - 2 25020 


APPENDIX B. : 


THE MEANING oF IIOIEIN ; ; ‘ : 1 7! t Ry 
APPENDIX C. 

THE MEANING oF ANAMNH2ZIZ2 ‘ - 5 c c fe Sesh 
APPENDIX D. 

THE MEANING OF KATATTEAAEIN : ° ° c cd ens 4 


APPENDIX E. 
THE MEANING oF OTZIA AINEZEQNZ : : A f 4 Eye SiS) 


APPENDIX F. 
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE CONSECRATION AND THE OBLATION 34 


APPENDIX G. 


THE INWARD AND THE OUTWARD PART OF THE SACRAMENT, EACH 
REAL IN ITS OWN SPHERE . : “ - : ; i ss 


APPENDIX H. 
THE ARRANGEMENT OF SERVICES . ° . ° . ‘ wao 


APPENDIX I. 
FASTING COMMUNION . 4 : zi : “ 6 : é aah 


APPENDIX K. 
RESERVATION OF THE SACRAMENT |. c 4 : 5 » 45 


Digitized By He Internet [ 
in 2022 with funding from 
_ Duke University Libraries 


https://archive.org/details/eucharist0- 


A CHARGE, &c. 


My Brethren of the Clergy and of the Laity: 


It has been my endeavour, through various publications put forth 
from time to time during the last thirteen years,* to keep before our 
people the doctrine of the Sacraments set forth in the Prayer Book, 
as an integral part of the Christian religion. They are not mere 
symbols of needed gifts, but “effectual signs,”’ conveying to those 
who rightly use them what they signify;+ they are the means or- 
dained by our Lord Jesus Christ for bringing home to us individu- 
ally, through the agency of His Holy Spirit, the virtue and benefits 
of His life and death, the renewal, that is, of human nature by the 
incarnation of the eternal Son of God, and our deliverance from 
bondage to sin and Satan effected by His victorious sacrifice. In 
particular I have striven to maintain a true regard for the Eucha- 
rist,{ the Sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood, as the chief 
service of the Christian Church, in which all other devotions find 
their culmination, the Lord’s Service which should mark the 
Lord’s Day, if possible, in every congregation, certainly in every 
cure where there is a properly ordained priest to consecrate the 


* The Sacraments (a tract, 1901). Votes on the use of the Prayer Book 
(1895). Jrstructions and Devotions on the Holy Communion (1901). Com- 
panion to the Prayer Book (1902). Extracts from Convention Addresses, 
1894-1904, pp. 21, 22. 

+ Article xxv. 

t The word “‘ eucharist ” passed from meaning (1) simply thanksgiving, 
to mean (2) the specially ordained thanksgiving of the Christian Church, 
the whole service or sacrifice of thanksgiving, and then (3) the consecrated 
elements themselves, 


6 THE EUCHARIST. 


sacrament, and lead the corporate worship of the people.* The 
celebration of the Eucharist is the great central act of Christian 
worship. Therein according to His institution we shew the Lord’s 
death until His coming again.t Therein we receive spiritual food, 
Christ’s body and blood, which He declared to be meat indeed 
and drink indeed, for the nourishment of our inner life.{ Therein 

* See Appendix H, The Arrangement of Services, p. 40. 

““The celebrating priest is indeed the necessary organ of the body’s 
action. He is the mouth with which she prays, and the hand by which she 
offers and blesses in the name of Christ. But the sacrifice is the church’s 
sacrifice. . . . ‘We offer,’ ‘we do sacrifice,’ is the language of the 
liturgies. ‘ No priest,’ says Peter Lombard, ‘says, I offer, but We offer, in 
the person of the whole church.’” Gore, Body of Christ, p. 213, comp. 
271. 

It has been necessary to call attention to the necessity not only of a duly 
ordained minister, but of the proper matter for a valid Eucharist, Bread 
and Wine—not unfermented grape juice. See Votes on the use of the 
Prayer Book, p. 29, and The Mountain Echo, Jan., 1902, where the decla- 
ration of the American Bishops at Chicago in 1886, reaffirmed by the Lam- 
beth Conference in 1888, is quoted: ‘‘ The use of unfermented juice of the 
grape, or any liquid other than true wine diluted or undiluted, as the ele- 
ment in the administration of the cup in Holy Communion, is unwarranted 
by the example of our Lord, and is an unauthorized departure from the 
custom of the Catholic Church.” 

+ 1 Cor. xi. 26. For the force of xarayyé\X\ew, see Appendix D, p. 32. 

{John vi. 55. If the discourse in John vi. does not relate directly to 
the Eucharist, it is because it expresses the larger idea of which the Eucha- 
rist is a particular concrete embodiment, the one leading embodiment which 
Christ bequeathed to His Church. Sanday, art. ‘‘ Jesus Christ,” in Hasz- 
ings’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. I1., p. 637. 

‘‘ Body and blood” stand for the whole man—the outer frame and the 
inner essence, with which the life was identified. Accordingly, to feed 
upon Christ’s body and blood means to take into oneself His manhood; 
z.¢., its spiritual principle. By the separation of the parts the idea of a 
violent death is presupposed. The Son of man lived for us and died for 
us, and communicates to us the effects of His life and death as perfect man. 
See Westcott, Zhe Gospel of St. John, p. 107, comp. his Revelation of the 
Father, p. 40. 


PROPORTION IN TEACHING. 7 


by virtue of this reception our fellowship in Christ with God and 
one with another is renewed and cemented. “Seeing that there is 
one loaf, we who are many, are one body, for we all partake from 
the one loaf.” * All this we should contend for as a definite part of 
the Christian religion. ‘Let us see that we hold and teach the truth 
in accordance with the analogy of the faith, in due proportion.+ 
About the importance of this rule of proportion I have thought 
it desirable at this time to give some warnings, because of certain 
dangerous tendencies abroad, by which in Vermont we are af- 
fected indeed only indirectly, but not less really. There is a dan- 
ger of the sober and restrained teaching of our best Anglican di- 
vines (whether in England or America), based on their study of 
Holy Scripture and ancient authors,{ being largely forsaken for 


* This is the probable translation. 1 Cor. x. 17. So St. Ignatius, 
Eph. 20: 

“‘ Assemble yourselves together . . . in one faith and one Jesus Christ 

breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality and the 
antidote that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ.” Light- 
foot, Apostolic Fathers, I1., 1. p. 545. A similar idea is set forth in the 
Prayer of Thanksgiving contained in the Didache, ix. 4: ‘‘As the elements 
of this bread, scattered on the mountains, were brought together into a 
single whole, may Thy Church in like manner be gathered together from 
the ends of the earth into Thy Kingdom.” 

This symbolism of the ‘‘ one loaf” is lost when separated wafers are used. 
‘Individual Communion cups” are a still further departure from apostolic 
practice and ideas. 

+ Rom. xii. 6. 

¢ See ¢.g. Bp. Beveridge, Works, vol. v., p. 229: ‘‘ From hence ye 
may all see the excellency of our church, in that it requires nothing to be 
believed as an article of faith but what the apostles first taught, and what 
the church of Christ in all ages hath believed to be consonant to the doc- 
trines delivered in their writings: but whatsoever opinion hath no ground 
or foundation in them, that ours, together with the catholic church, re- 
jecteth as either utterly false, or, at best, not necessary to be believed.” 

Especially for primitive teaching concerning the Eucharist, I would refer 
to the 6th discourse in vol. I. of Bp. Seabury’s Sermons, in which he 


8 DANGERS OF EXAGGERATION. 


presentations of sacramental and eucharistic doctrine drawn from 
medizeval and Roman sources. A good deal of exaggerated lan- 
guage is prevalent in doctrinal and devotional books which have a 
considerable circulation, and are apt to colour the teaching of the 
younger clergy.* 

Such language brings twofold mischief: + 

(x) It tends insensibly, but almost inevitably, to a superstitious 
regard and use of the sacrament. Both advocates and oppo- 
nents of certain theories of the Eucharist urge that these opinions 
logically lead to the practice of reserving the sacrament for pur- 
poses of devotion and worship. 

(2) On the other hand, by a representation for which they find 
no authority in Scripture, many are repelled from all sacramental 
doctrine. The neglect and irreverence that we lament around us 
in New England are liable to be increased rather than remedied 
by the propagation of crude and unwarranted theories. 


The Eucharist is the central act of Christian worship. It is dis- 


appeals to the early writers, and first liturgies of the Christian Church, to 
the testimony of the first Reformers in England, to the first prayer-book of 
Edward VI, and to the doctrine and practice of the venerable remains of 
the old apostolical church of Scotland. 

* Reference may be made for the sake of example to a more formal treat- 
ise, by the Rev. Dr. A. G. Mortimer, Catholic Doctrine and Practice, and to 
a popular tract, Discerning the Lord’s Body: the Real Presence, some Illus- 
trations and Results, by the Rev. H. Page Dyer, with a Preface by the 
Bishop of Fond du Lac. 

+ Comp. what Mr. Keble says about the doctrine of Transubstantiation, 
Eucharistical Adoration, ch. iv, p. 123 (3d ed.): ‘‘ Within the Roman 
obedience it has been a scandal to the simpler sort by ‘giving occasion to 
many superstitions,’ it being so exceedingly hard for them to separate it 
from a base and carnal idea of the Holy Sacrament. Among us, and every- 
where in the West apart from Rome, it has proved a still greater scandal ; 
itis the one chief reason of the prejudice which in these later ages has 
prevailed, and is prevailing (God grant it may not always prevail), against 
the true and primitive doctrine, which is mistaken for it.” 


DHE VBUCHARIST FOR THE FAITHRUE. 9 


tinctly the worship of the faithful, of the baptized who are living 
measurably true to their baptismal calling, to the promises made 
and the grace received in that sacrament. The Eucharist is not 
intended to be a mission service, for the conversion of unbelievers 
or of the godless and indifferent. These should rather be excluded 
from the sacred mysteries in the spiritual appreciation of which 
they can have little share.* The glorying in Christ’s death, His 
victorious sacrifice, can have little meaning to those who do not 
recognize His divine person and representative manhood, or who 
are practical enemies of His cross, leading self-indulgent lives, un- 
mindful of their baptism into His death. 

The presence at the celebration of the Eucharist of devout per- 
sons who for reasons of spiritual prudence are not prepared to 
receive on every occasion when it is celebrated, or when they can 
be in church, is an entirely different matter. This may well be 
defended and encouraged, provided it is recognized that it is only 
by receiving the body and blood of Christ that the benefits of His 
sacrifice, commemorated in the Eucharist, are sealed to us.{ So 
likewise in the case of children, and especially of those preparing 
for Confirmation and Communion. 

According to our Lord’s institution the pleading of the sacrifice 
is closely connected with the partaking of His sacramental body 
and blood. The eating and drinking, actual communion, is not a 
further additional ceremony, as if the sacrifice were pleaded by 

* So Justin Martyr (Afolozy, i. 66): ‘‘ This food is called among us 
Eucharist, of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes 
that the things which we teach are true, and also has been washed with the 
washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who 
is living as Christ enjoined.” 

In days of strict discipline some classes of penitents were altogether ex- 
cluded from the celebration of the mysteries; others were allowed to be 
present, but not to partake. These were said to share in the prayers, and 
not in the sacrifice. See Bingham, Zecl. Andtig. viii. v. 5. 

+ Phil. iii. 18, Rom. vi. 1-13. 

¢ Keble, Letters of Spiritual Counsel, cxxviii., clv. 


10 PARTAKING OF THE OBLATION. 


the consecration while the communion is a separate duty or privi- 
‘lege.* “Take, eat,” and “Drink ye all of this,” are parts of the 
record of the institution. The command precedes the declaration 
“This is My body,” ‘“‘ This is My blood.” To eat and drink is, as 
much as to bless and break, included in “ Do this for My remem- 
brance.”t The eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, 
whereby we are made one with Him (our baptismal incorporation 
into Him being thus renewed), enables us to join in His self-obla- 
tion which in the Eucharist we commemorate. Along with Him 
our head and leader, we offer ourselves, our souls and bodies, a 
reasonable, holy and living sacrifice to God. This (as St. Augus- 
tine continually urges) is the great Christian sacrifice, the oblation 
of Christ’s mystical body to God, to do His will, in unio with 
Christ’s own perfect self-oblation. { 

The central oblation in the Eucharist is nothing material, 
though it may be presented under a material figure or an outward 
act.§ Bread and wine have been presented as firstfruits of God’s 
gifts in creation, for which, as well as for His work in redemption, 
we praise His name. The broken bread and outpoured wine, after 
the recitation of Christ’s words of institution, represent Christ’s 


" * As in the common Roman Catholic practice, where the Holy Com- 
munion may be given out of Mass, and at a separate time, even to persons 
who have just assisted, or are about to assist, at the celebration of the Mass. 
‘Popular modern theology has erected a false and mischievous separa- 
tion between the idea of sacrifice and the idea of communion.” Pullan, 
The Atonement, p. 8o. 
+ See Appendix A, p. 25, The Record of the Institution. 
hy B, p. 27, The meaning of rrocety, 
a C, p. 31, The meaning of dvdurnors. . 
$‘‘Christ is both the priest who offers and the sacrifice offered. 
And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of 
the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him.” 
De Civitate Dei, x. 20; comp. serm. 272 (to the newly baptized). 
§ ‘‘Passio est enim Domini sacrificium quod offerimus.’’ Cyprian, 
Ep. Ixiii. 


THE REAL OBLATION. II 


body broken and His blood shed in the passion. But it is not the 
body and blood as such that we offer, either really or symbolically 
present in the “holy gifts;” * it is Christ’s death viewed as a moral 
act that we plead; not the mere suffering, but His obedience 
reaching even to death and perfected in the surrender of His life.f 
This moral triumph of the Son of man, this victorious sacrifice, we 
proclaim to one another and to all; { init we glory before God and 
make our boast; in this we claim our share. Feeding upon our 
Lord’s humanity perfected through suffering and exalted to the 
throne of God, we derive from Him the power to follow where He 
has led the way. Thus the Eucharist becomes a great supplication, 
chief among Christian prayers, as it is also our great sacrifice of 


praise and thanksgiving.§ This is the pure bloodless sacrifice of 
4 


* The most probable view of the relation of the oblation to the consecra- 
tion is that which is naturally suggested by our own Prayer of Consecration, 
viz., that (1) the broken bread and outpoured wine are offered to God as 
symbols of Christ’s body and blood, along with our praise and thanksgiving 
for His victorious sacrifice, and all that it accomplished for us; and that 
(2) then the bread and wine so used are returned to us quickened and vivi- 
fied by the Spirit of God, and made to be the means of conveying to our 
inner and regenerate being the body and blood of Christ, z.e., a fresh share 
in the virtue of His sacred humanity. Strictly speaking, we do not offer the ° 
body and blood of Christ, but only ina figure. The material offerings of 
bread and wine are given back to us endowed with spiritual efficacy. See 
Appendix F, p. 34, The connexion between the oblation and the con- 
secration. 

+ Phil. ii. 8, comp. Ps. xl. 6-8, Heb. xi. 5-10. ‘‘ Non mors, sed volun- 
tas placuit sponte morientis.’”” S. Bernard, Tract. de erroribus Abaelardi, 
viii. 

t See Appendix D, p. 32, The meaning of xarayyé\Aecv. 

§ See Appendix E, p. 33, The meaning of 6ucla aivécews. 

Comp. the Answer of the Archbishops of England to the Apostolic Letter 
of Pope Leo XIII (1897): *‘ First we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanks- 
giving ; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of 
the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other 
benefits of the Lord’s Passion for all the whole Church; and lastly we offer 


12 CHRIST'S SACRIFICE. 


which the Fathers speak, and to which they apply the prophecy of 
Malachi.* 

The death of the Son of man upon the cross in perfect obedience 
to His Father was at once a reparation to God for the manifold 
disobedience of those whom He represented, and a triumph over 
the power of evil, which in His own person but on our behalf He 
conquered.t This was the fulfilment of the typical sin-offering 
and burnt-offering of the Levitical law.{ But the sacrifice did not 
consist in the mere death or slaying of the victim; the blood, 
which symbolized the life which had passed through death, was 
offered before God. This was the really sacrificial act. And this 
is fulfilled in our Lord’s presenting Himself before God in heaven, 
alive from the dead and perfected through suffering. At the 
ascension He performs this priestly act, Himself both priest and 
victim.§ Our Eucharist depends on this offering, and, like the 


the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already 
signified by the oblations of His creatures. This whole action, in which 
the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed 
to call the Eucharistic sacrifice.” Pp.°18, Io. 

‘“We do readily acknowledge an Eucharistical sacrifice of prayers and 
praises ; we profess a commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross ; and in 
the language of Holy Church, things commemorated are related as if they 
were then acted ; as—‘ Almighty God who hast given us Thy Son as f¢his 
day to be born of a pure Virgin,’ etc.: we acknowledge a representation of 
that Sacrifice to God the Father: we acknowledge an impetration of the 
benefit of it: we maintain an application of its virtue; so here is a com- 
Abp. Bramhall, Axzswer to 


memorative, impetrative, applicative Sacrifice.’ 
M. de la Milletiore. 

* Mal. i. 10, 11. For several quotations see Bp. John Wordsworth, 
The Holy Communion, p. 11 note. The primary reference of the prophet 
is probably to the offerings of the Gentiles ‘ie acceptable to God. 

+Christ offered to the Father ow manhood perfected in himself. Gore, ° 
Body of Christ, p. 209. 

$ See Willis on The Worship of the Old Covenant. 

§ It seems to be a matter of little importance, probably not really more 
than a difference in the use of language, whether Christ’s offering of Him- 


CHRIST OUR LEADER. 13 


peace-offering, provides the feast upon this sacrifice. Feeding on 
that which has been offered to God, we are His guests, and are 
taken up into the life of Him, our head, on whom we feed. 

This, which seems to be the general representation of the Eu- 
charist in the Fathers, is, it will be recognized, something very 
. different from and far higher than the popular views inherited 
largely from the Middle Ages, wherein men are accustomed to 
look for deliverance from future consequences and penalties of sin 
for the sake of what Christ has done and suffered, rather than for 
release from bondage to sin and evil through union with Christ, 
“knowing Him and the power of His resurrection, and the fel- 
lowship of His sufferings, being conformed unto His death.” * 

The thought of Christ as our external substitute rather than as 
our representative and head, is, I am convinced, at the bottom of 
a great many of our popular misconceptions, and poor, earthly 
ideas concerning the Eucharist, derived from both Roman and 
Protestant sources. Instead of glorying in Christ’s conquest of sin 
and Satan, claiming our part therein, and proclaiming the great 
fact, the good news, to others, we are too generally content to beg 
God’s merciful consideration, on Christ’s account, for ourselves 
and others, while still remaining earthbound slaves of evil. The 
self in heaven be regarded as a single act performed at the Ascension, while 
its virtue is continually called forth and distributed, or whether it be thought 
of asacontinual act. In either case there is a continued intercession on 
our behalf, involved in the very fact of our Lord’s presence before the 
Father, as our representative, the Lamb as it had been slain. In either 
case our prayers (offered ‘ through Christ’, ‘inHis name’) and our eucharists 
depend on His intercession, and on His pleading in heaven the merits of 
His death on the cross, His obedience unto death. See Rom. viii. 34; 
Heb. vii. 25, 27, viii. 11, 12, ix. 24, 25, x. 12; 1 John ii. 1; Rev. v. 6. 

* Phil. iii, 10. It would be a good exercise for any to read through the 
Epistle to the Philippians with the object of gaining the writer’s view of 
the purpose and effect of our Lord’s passion. The author would venture 


to refer to the last of his Baldwin Lectures, Christ?’s Temptation and Ours, 
for a fuller treatment of the victory of the passion. ° 


14 NO RETURN TO EARTH. 


Eucharist is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving offered by 
redeemed men; not a pleading for pardon by those who are not 
reconciled.* In Christ, united with Him, we have received adop- 
tion as sons. He has loosed us from our sins by His blood, 2.e., 
His life laid down for us and communicated to us; for this our 
praise is offered to Him who was slain and by His death made 
those whom He purchased to God out of every nation, a kingdom 
of priests.{ His perfect righteousness, in which God delights and 
in which we glory, is more and more imparted to us His members, 
who meanwhile, in spite of our manifold actual imperfections, are 
accepted in Him, as members of God’s well-beloved Son. 


Forgetting the exaltation of our regenerate condition, that in St. 
Paul’s language we have been made to sit with Christ in heavenly 
places,§ we are tempted to think of Him as coming down again to 
earth; if not again to suffer, yet mystically to die again in the con- 
secration of the sacrament of His body and blood,|| and to be 
amongst us by an external presence on the altars of our churches, 
to receive our worship, to hear our prayers, and bestow His bene- 
diction; as if He had not declared, It is expedient for you that, as 
regards any such external or sensible presence, I go away, in 
order that when ascended I may by My Spirit come to be 
with you in a closer fashion, not alongside of you or before 
your eyes, but within your very being.’ “Christ in you, the 
is the Christian’s joy and boast.** Every one 


hope of glory,” 
* Heb. xii. 22-24, Rev. v. 9-14. 
+ See the Note on The idea of Christ’s Blood in the New Testament in 
Westcott’s Zpistles of St. John, p. 34. 
t Rev. i. 5, v. 9, Gal. iv. 5. 


§ Eph. ii. 6. 
|| See J. R. Milne’s valuable Considerations on Eucharistic Worship, 
Pp. 44- 


J John xvi. 7, xx. 17. 
SACol 27: 


HOW CHRIST DWELLS IN US. 15 


of the faithful can claim, like St. Ignatius, to be a bearer of 
God in his heart.* 

Christ comes to dwell in us,t not by any return to this lower 
world, from which He has ascended; nor by multiplying minia- 
tures of Himself on the altars of Christendom or in the hearts of 
His people; but by stretching forth His hand, as it were, from the 
spiritual world in which He reigns “‘at God’s right hand,” to take 
hold of us and lift us up to share His life. Our earthly parents 
dwell in us by imparting to us their nature, with many of their 
own characteristics stamped upon it. But our life is separated 
from theirs. From Christ, as the second Adam, we derive our re- 
newed moral and spiritual life, but not as something once received 
and then held in separation from Him. Our spiritual life is a 
continual gift depending on our union with Him. By continually 
imparting to us, through sacramental instrumentalities, the virtue 
of His renewed manhood, He, while abiding in His glorified condi- 
tion, dwells in us. The glorified Head controls increasingly all the 
members of His mystical body, which gradually grows to its per- 
fection, reproducing more and more the likeness of the Lord. 


The eucharistic presence can be no more real, as it is no less 
spiritual, than the presence of Christ within us by virtue of our 
baptism. In the sacrament of initiation we are baptized into Him, 
we put on Christ, we are made one body with Him;{ all this by 
no unreal figure of speech, though the language, of course, is that 
of allegory, earthly relationships being used to symbolize the close- 
ness of the fellowship into which we are gathered with Christ. 
In the sacrament of His body and blood we feed on Him; our 
union with Him is continually strengthened as we draw into our- 
selves the virtue of His sacred humanity, that He may increasingly 


* @eoddpos. See Lightfoot’s note on Ignatius to the Ephesians, ad ini¢. 
+ Eph. iii. 17. 
t Gal. iii. 27, 1 Cor. xii. 13. 


16 PREPARATION FOR BAPTISM. 


dwell in us and we in Him. This twofold aspect of the divine 
connexion is illustrated, as Bishop Westcott points out, by the two 
great images of the “body” and the “temple.” “We abide in 
Him since we are His members: He abides in us since we are His 
temple,” says St. Augustine.* This mutual indwelling involves, 
let us always remember (as does the very idea of feeding), spiritual 
activity on our part, and not mere passive reception of His gifts of 
grace.t “Feed on Him in thy heart by faith, with thanksgiving.” 
Food cannot be of a higher order than the life which it nourishes. 
We do not come as children of nature to receive spiritual food, but 
as members of Christ. We must come in the strength of our re- 
generate life.{ Hence the necessity of examining ourselves, not 
only concerning what we have done, but as to where we stand, 
whether we be in the faith, true to our baptismal covenant.§ 
Here I must plead for most earnest care in the preparation of 
candidates for Baptism. Very little, I fear, is often made of this, 
far less than of preparation for Confirmation or for first Commu- 


* Hom. on S. John xxvii. 6. 

+‘‘ To eat and to drink is to take into oneself by a voluntary act that 
which is without, and then to assimilate it and make it part of oneself. It 
is, as it were, faith regarded in its converse action. Faith throws the be- 
liever upon and into its object ; this spiritual eating and drinking brings the 
object of faith into the believer.”” Westcott on John vi. 53. This consid- 
eration explains and justifies the disuse of Infant Communion. 

{So Hooker begins his great discussion of the eucharist (Eccl. Pol, V. 
Ixvii.): ‘‘ The grace which we have by the holy eucharist doth not begin but 
continue life. No man therefore receiveth this sacrament before baptism, 
because no dead thing is capable of nourishment. That which groweth 
must of necessity first live.” Comp. Bible Teachings by R. M. Benson, p. 
121. ‘* Those whoare not baptized, as also those that do not approach the 
Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood in the power of their baptismal life, 
have not got the capacity of receiving that which is given to them in this 
holy ordinance. Just so, a person without the sense of smell cannot partake 
of the fragrance of a flower which he may hold in his hand.” 

§1 Cor. xi. 28, 2 Cor. xiii. 5. 


BAPTISM AND THE EUCHARIST. 17 


nion. Yet it is Baptism which marks the great change from dark- 
ness to light, from nature to grace.* Being regenerate in Bap- 
tism, we receive the gift of the Spirit in Confirmation, and are 
prepared to feed upon Christ in Holy Communion. In the case 
of an adult, or of any of sufficient age to answer for themselves, or 
to appreciate the meaning of the sacred washing, the preparation 
for receiving this sacrament, in repentance and prayer and instruc- 
tion, ought to be most real and thorough. 


There is a difference between Baptism and the Eucharist, 
which is plainly recognized in our Catechism. In Baptism the 
change (if we use the word) is effected directly on the person. 
There are in this sacrament but two things to be considered: 

(1) the outward visible sign—water, wherein the person is 
baptized In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the 
Holy Ghost; 

(2) the inward spiritual grace—the death of the person unto 
sin, and his new birth unto righteousness. 

In the Lord’s Supper there are three things to be considered: 

(1) the outward visible sign—the bread and wine; 

(2) the inward part or thing signified—the body and blood of 
Christ; 

(3) the spiritual grace, or the benefits—the strengthening and 
refreshing of our souls by the body and blood of Christ, as our 
bodies are strengthened and refreshed by the bread and wine. 

In Baptism the person is consecrated; in Holy Communion the 
bread and wine are consecrated. The spiritual food is provided 
by consecration before it is given to the communicant. But the 
presence of our Lord is as spiritual in the Eucharist as in Bap- 
tism; it is as real in Baptism as in the Eucharist. Whatever term 
we use of the sacramental presence in connexion with the elements 


*See Matt. xxviii. 19, John iii. 5, Acts xxii. 16, Rom. vi. 3, 4, Gal. 
iii. 27, Col. ii. 12, Tit. iii. 5, 1 Pet. iii. 21. 


° 


18 BAPTISM AND THE EUCHARIST. 


in Holy Communion, we ought to be prepared to use of the pres- 
ence of Christ in the baptized.* 

The relation between Baptism and the Sacrament of our Lord’s 
body and blood shows that we should think of the Eucharist as a 
central mystery in a supernatural world or system into which we 
have been admitted, rather than as a miracle in the lower world 
of nature.t In this connexion it is noteworthy how few are the 
references in the New Testament Scriptures to the Eucharist 
compared with those, direct and indirect, to Baptism. Baptism 
marks the great change—the self-surrender on our part, the gift 
of renewal on God’s. Holy Communion is on God’s part the 
nourishment and refreshment of the spiritual life imparted to us 
in Baptism; on our part there is the renewed self-oblation of our- 
selves, our souls and bodies, in union with Christ’s perfect sacrifice 
which we plead. Great as is the gift and the mystery of the Eu- 
charist, it is (I must repeat) but the continuation and renewal of 
the baptismal gift and mystery. Accordingly, in Scripture the 
initial gift is emphasized as that whereon all rests. The case is 
the same with the creed. We profess our belief in “One bap- 
tism for the remission of sins.” This is the foundation of all 
else in the sacramental system, and stands as the representative 
ofallt 

The declaration of the Council of Trent that whole Christ, His 
body, soul and divinity, is present in each particle of the conse- 
crated bread and wine, is misleading, if not, strictly speaking, 


* Bible Teachings, R. M. Benson, pp. 61, 122, 253. 

+ Zéid., Note xxiii, ‘‘ Miracles and Mysteries.” 

t Here I would call attention (as in the Lenten pastoral of 1905) to the 
directions of the Prayer Book concerning the public administration of Holy 
Baptism whenever this is possible. It is a sad mistake, as well as a disre- 
gard of plain rules, to administer Baptism in private. The reverent admin- 
istration of the sacrament in the presence of the full congregation has a 
most beneficial effect. It will help as much as anything to a right under- 
-standing aud appreciation of the sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood, 


CHRIST’S PERSONAL PRESENCE. .- 19 


inaccurate.* If Christ dwells in us, it is, of course, His divine per- 
son which animates us, but not by, in any sense, imprisoning Him- 
self within us. Rather He unites us, by making us to share in 
His renewed and glorified manhood, to His glorious person at the 
right hand of God.t We see the special appropriateness of the 
prayer to the exalted Saviour in the Gloria in excelsis at the end 
of our Communion service. 


Beside “the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the death 
of Christ” and the spiritual feeding of His people, there is no third 
purpose for which the Sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood 
was ordained, or for which we may (because we have His sanc- 
tion) legitimately use it.{ Reservation of the consecrated ele- 


. 


*Sess. xiii, canons I, 3. For the earlier sources of this teaching, see 
Gore, Dissertations, p. 266, n. The Catechism of the Council of Trent 
goes even further, and bids pastors ‘‘ explain that in this sacrament are con- 
tained not only the true body of Christ, and whatsoever appertains to the 
character of a true body, such as bones and nerves, but also Christ whole 
and entire.” Part ii, chap. iv, qu. 31. 

+A similar error is frequently made with reference to the Incarnation, in 
supposing that when the Son of God became man on earth He /ef¢ heaven. 
The opening lines of the hymn, of which O Salutaris Hostia begins the 
concluding stanzas, would serve to correct the mistake: ‘‘ Verbum super- 
num prodiens, Nec Patris linquens dexteram.” 

¢ The uses to which the consecrated elements were commonly put in early 
ages seem to show conclusively that there was not the same conception of 
the sacrament which later gained general acceptance in the Western Church. 
If it had been believed that ‘‘the body and blood, together with the soul 
and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, are contained truly, really, and sub- 
stantially in the sacrament,” could it have been a sanctioned or tolerated 
custom, not merely to carry the sacrament on the person for protection, or 
send it to others as a token of Christian affection and fellowship, but to bury 
it with the dead or in an altar, or to sign documents with a pen dipped in 
the wine? See Catholic Dictionary (Addis and Arnold), p. 716. Scud- 
amore, Notitia Eucharistica, ch. xvii., sec. viii. and ix. Green, Zhe 
XXXIX Articles, p. 235. Jewel, Works, ii. p. 554. (Parker Soc. ed.) 


20 RESERV ATION. 


ments “as a centre of prayer,” to secure our Lord’s perpetual 
presence, that we may visit Him enshrined in the sacrament in a 
tabernacle or monstrance, is altogether without authority from 
Scripture or from the primitive church.* Such a practice is based 
upon the assumption (unwarranted for any such superstructure) 
that the presence of Christ is by virtue of the consecration perma- 
nently connected for any purpose with the sacramental elements, 
whereas it is only guaranteed for the purposes for which He in- 
stituted the sacrament.f 

Reservation of the sacrament for the purpose of distribution to 
the sick, or to persons otherwise unavoidably prevented from 
attending the public service, has the sanction of the earliest ages. { 


* “Tt is only in times comparatively modern that the most Holy Sacra- 
ment has been publicly exposed for the veneration of the faithful.” Prob- 
ably in the 14th century the sacrament was exposed on Corpus Christi Day 
[the observance of which only dates from the previous century]. In the 16th 
century it became common to expose the sacrament at other times. The 
devotion of the Forty Hours worship of the exposed sacrament was due 
to a Capuchin of Milan, who died 1556. In 1592 Clement VIII provided 
for the perpetual public adoration of the sacrament on the altars of the 
different churches in Rome, the forty hours in one church succeeding to 
the forty hours in another. Catholic Dictionary, p. 331. 

Thiers in his Trazté de l’exposition du saint sacrement de 1’autel (1673) 
says: ‘‘ The custom of Benediction appears to me somewhat novel, for I 
have found no Ritual or Ceremonial older than about 100 years which men- 
tions it.” Jbdzd., p. 76. 

+ Gore, Body of Christ, pp. 131 sg. ‘‘ The presence is controlled by the 
purpose. And in a matter where the evidence of the senses is denied us, 
our only right to be confident that the presence abides with us depends on 
our remaining under the shelter of the purpose.” 

Thorndike lays stress on the consecration ‘‘in order to communion.” 
See Laws of the Church, I1l., xxxi. 9, and Reformation of the Church 
of England, etc., xxvi. 5; xlii. 1, 2. 

t¢ Justin Martyr (A.D. 140), Apology, i. 65: ‘‘ Distribution is made to each 
of his share of the elements which have been blessed, and to those who are 
not present it is sent by the ministry of the deacons.” Comp. Tertullian, 


“er 


DIRECTIONS OF THE PRAYER-BOOK. 21 


Those to whom the consecrated elements were sent were not only 
spiritually united with their brethren by partaking of the same 
spiritual food; they had a pledge of this fellowship by partaking 
of the sacramental elements consecrated at the public Commun- 
ion.* To emphasize this, as well as for considerations of spiritual 
convenience, it would in my judgment be very desirable to revive 
among ourselves, with proper safeguards, the authoritative per- 
mission to reserve the sacrament for communion of the sick. 
But until sucha practice is authorized, we are, it seems to me, bound 
(save in extraordinary cases for which no rule has been or can be 
framed) to administer the sacrament to the sick, or in private, 
according to the form prescribed in the Prayer-book,{ just as we 
are bound to follow the prescribed order for public worship and 
ministration. We were admitted to holy orders (or received as 
priests of the American Church) on this condition (with others) 
that we solemnly engaged to conform to the doctrine, discipline, 
and worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United 
States of America.§ And, however desirable a restoration of res- 
ervation for the sick may be, it will be impossible to gain the 


De Orat., 19; Ad uxor., ii. 3; Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi. 44. On subsequent 
practice in the East and the West, see Wordsworth, Ze Holy Comm., pp. 
EEO, FE]; , 

* It was with this idea that in old times portions of the elements (called 
the fermentum), consecrated at the bishop’s Eucharist, were sent to other 
churches under his care. See Frere, Principles of Religious Ceremonial, 
Pp. 54, 64. 

+ Whether with the restrictions of the English Prayer Book of 1549, 
only on days when there was a public Communion in the church, or (to 
meet the needs of large populations and of sudden calls) as a more general 
custom. 

¢ Not only is there a prescribed Order for Administration to the sick, 
but in the concluding rubric the Church takes the responsibility of a person 


* being unable under certain circumstances to receive sacramentally, and of 


his being obliged to be content with a spiritual communion. 
§ Article viii. of the Constitution. 


22 EUCHARISTIC ADORATION. 


Church’s permission for it, while reservation for purposes of 
- adoration is practised and widely advocated.* 


* ““Christian worship may be, nay must be, meant to involve spiritual 
effort. It is God’s intention that we should be spiritually lifted up to rea- 
lize that Christ’s presence with us is a presence in the Church, as the life of 
the body, not amongst Christians as in an outward shrine; and that nearness 
to Him, or remoteness from Him, is a matter of faith and holiness, and not 
of place.” Gore, Body of Christ, p. 141. Comp. Waggett, The Holy 
Lucharist, p. 19. 

Concerning what is called ‘‘ Eucharistic Adoration,” Mozley, in his valu- 
able lecture on ‘‘ The Holy Eucharist” (in his posthumous volume of Zec- 
turesand other Theological papers), helpfully distinguishes between (1) the 
adoration of Christ in the whole act of partaking of the sacrament, and (2) 
the adoration of Christ as contained in some sense in that which is received; 
and shows that the former is that advocated by the Fathers generally and 
defended by Anglican divines, ¢.g., Thorndike: ‘‘ The celebration of the 
Eucharist is a competent occasion for executing that worship which is always 
due to our Lord Christ incarnate.” Laws of the Church, I11., xxxi., 
§1-6. Abp. Bramhall: ‘‘ We deny not a venerable respect unto the conse- 
crate elements, not only as love-tokens sent us by our best Friend, but as 
the instruments ordained by our Saviour to convey to us the merits of His 
Passion. For the Person of Christ, God forbid that we should deny Him 
divine worship at any time, and especially in the use of this holy sacrament; 
we believe with St. Austin [in Ps. xcviii. 9] that ‘no man eats of that Flesh 
but first he adores ;’ but that which offends us is this, that you teach and 
require all men to adore the very sacrament with divine honour.” Answer 
to the epistle of M. De la Milletitre, 1., ii. Compare Bp. Andrewes, Re- 
sponse to Bellarmine (p. 267, Anglo-Cath, Lib.), where he makes the same 
distinction, and goes on to condemn devotional practices connected with 
the reserved sacrament. ‘‘ Nam circumgestare hoc vestrum praecepio Christi 
contrarium, nec ei usquam Scriptura favet. Contrarium et zzstituto. In- 
stitutum enim tum Sacrificiz, ut absumi; tum Sacramenti, ut accipi, man- 
ducari, non recondi et circumferri. Extra Sacramenti finem, extra praecepti 
vim, usus haud ullus. Fiat, quod fieri voluit Christus cum dixit, Hoc facie ; 
nihil reliqui fiet, quod monstret sacerdos, quod adoret populus, de pyxide.” 

Duchesne (Christian Worship, p. 62) makes the astounding statement 
that after the eucharistic prayer proper is completed by the invocation, 
““ The mystery is consummated. At the call of His disciples Christ has be- 


CONCLUSION. 23 


It has been my endeavour to state what I believe to be the 
Anglican, the Primitive, and the truly Catholic doctrine of the 
Eucharist. This has been done, of course, briefly, and with the 
hope of strengthening a true regard of the sacrament even more 
than of controverting errors. In a matter of this kind, where we 
at any rate are free from detailed definitions, no set of opinions can 
be or ought to be forced upon others.* A considerable latitude of 
opinion and emphasis, in one direction or another, must be 
allowed within the limits of what has been authoritatively en- 
joined or repudiated. Two things are important: first, that we 
should all reverently and diligently seek the truth, not being con- 
tent with traditional prejudices or unexamined partisan state- 
ments; and, second, that the clergy should carefully avoid official 
teaching or practices for which there is no authoritative warrant, 
and which seem to commit the Church, in whose name we min- 
ister, to asposition which she has not sanctioned. Above all, let 
us cherish and spread, in ourselves and others, a devout use of the 
blessed sacrament, praying that we may so reverence the sacred 
mysteries of our Lord’s body and blood, that we may ever per- 
ceive within ourselves the fruits of His redemption. 
come present in their midst. He has taken up His abode on the sacred 
altar under the mystic veils of the consecrated elements. The prayers are 
resumed, but directed now to the present, although invisible God.” There is 
absolutely no foundation in the authorities to which he refers at the head of 
this chapter for any change in the direction of the prayers after consecra- 
tion. They are still addressed to the Father through Christ. 

* It is with reference to Eucharistic controversies that Dr. Bigg writes : 

“It is always dangerous to confuse the provinces of opinion and knowl- 
edge. Even in our own minds it is a moral duty to avoid this error. If 
there is anything about which we are not certain, we ought not to pretend 
that it is otherwise : for this is intellectual dishonesty. The next degree of 
aberration is to persuade yourself that what is uncertain is certain; and 
this is superstition. The third and worst is to bind these false certainties 
by penalties of any kind on the consciences of other men ; this is tyranny,” 
Wayside Sketches in Ecclesiastical History, p. 178. 


S. Paul, 1 Cor. xi, 23-25. 


(The earliest document, written A.D. 57 
or (Harnack) 53.) 


478 yap mapAafov dxd roi xuplou, 
6 ral zapéSuxa iptv, 

Gre 8 xtpios "Inaods &v 7H wuxrl j mapedlbero 

‘afer Eprow kal ebyapierhoas Urhaser cal elnev 

rotrb pod éorw 7d cOya 7d tmep dudy- 

roiro moutre els rh» duhy dvdurnoty. 

Svatros Kal 73 wortpoy werd 7d Bervieas, Neywr 

rotro rd worfpiov % Kawvh Biabhxn dorly dv r@ dup aluaree 
roiro mouire, dodxis ddv wlyqre, els thy euhw dvdurnow. 


1. It is clear from a comparison of the different accounts 
that we have no guarantee for the actual words 
spoken by our Lord. But amid the variations the 
sense is clear. 


2. S. Paul's version, ‘This cup is the new covenant in 
my blood,” forbids our pressing the simple and 
literal force of “is” in ‘This is my body,” “ This 
is my blood.” Z 


3 The “new covenant” clearly refers to Ex. xxiv. 8, 
* Behold the blood of the covenant which the Lord 
hath made with you.” That blood was sprinkled on 
the people and pledged them to obedience to the 
law, and on these terms assured them of God's 
favour; this blood which the disciples are to drink 
will enable them to keep the higher law of Christ, 
by making them to share His life. 


APPENDIX A, | 


RECORD OF THE INSTITUTION. 


(The Greek text as given by Westcott and Hort.) 


S. Luke xxii, 17-20. 
BeEdperos xorpioy ebyapiorhoas elev 
AdBere toro Kal Stayeploare eis eavrobs: 
Aéyw yap Wily, od uh lw dxd rod viv 
dd ToD yerhuaros 7fs duré\ov 
fas of } Bacthela 700 Gcod APD, 
kal Nafdy Aprov elyapiorioas teNacer 
kal Buxev abrows Nywv 
roirs tori 7) cGud jou [rd imep tudy didbuevov- 
roUro xouire els Thy eu» dvdurmowr. 
kal 73 roripiov Gaatrws werd 7d SexvAgat, AMywr 
rotro rd woripioy } Kawvh diaOhen ev TH aluarl pov, 
7d brép tuGy exxuvvduevov). 


The omission of the words in brackets (19b and 20) 
belongs to the oldest form of the Western text. Inter- 
nal evidence is strongly in fayour of the shorter form. 
The temptation to expand was much stronger than to 
contract. The double mention of the cup in the longer 
form raises real difficulties of the kind which suggest 
interpolation, At the same time the longer text of the 
great body of MSS,, introducing a second cup, and filling 
out the account mainly from S. Paul, is evidence of the 
common belief and practice of the Christian Church 
early in the 2d century, 

See Sanday, art. “Jesus Christ” in Hastings's Dic 
tionary of the Bible, vol. Il, p. 636. 

The ordinary reading, including the passage here 
placed in brackets, is defended by Pullan, 7ie Afone 
ment, pp. 108, 109. 


| 
} 
| 


S. Mark xiv. 22-24. 
dabibyrav atray | 
Aafiby Sprov eddoyHaas txAagey Kal Ebwxev afrots at exer 
Adpere, Totrs dorw 73 Oud pov. 
Kal Nafdy wordpioy ebxapiorhaas KSuxev abr 
al Exiov ¢E atrol wdvres. Kal elzev atrott) 
rotrs dor 7d alud pov rhs diabiens | 
ri txxuvrbueroy trép rohKOv* ] 
uy Neyw buiy bre obxére od ph wlw 
ex 00 yerfuaros ris dusé\ov | 
Eas ris qudpas dxelens Bray aird lw Kandy | 


dy ri Baoidelg roo dco, 
| 
| 
| ° 
e@xapiorhoas used by Paul and Luke of the bread, 
by Mark and Matthew of the cup, 
«\oyjoas used by Mark and Matthew of the bread, 

S. Paul (1 Cor. x. 16) speaks of 7d rorspiov ris edAoylas, 

A similar variation is found in the atcounts of the 
multiplication of the loaves, 

«t\byqeer in Matt, xiv. 19, Mk. vi. 41, Lk. ix. 16, 
edxapiaryeas in John vi. 11. 

The two words are practically synonymous, the bless- 
ing being in the form of a thanksgiving. 1 Tim. iv. 3, 4. 
Sce Swete, St. Mark, p. 127. | 

We give thanks for good, and speak the word of good, 
praying that God’s earthhorn gifts of the bread and 


wine offered by us may in their use become to us the 
heavenly food of the body and blood of Christ. 


S. Matthew xxvi, 26-29. 
dadibrruy Be airav 
AaBdy 8 "Incos prov nal edoyh}aas Uxhavey 
kal Sods roi palnrais elmev 
Adfere Gdryere, rotrh tori 7d Gud pov. 
kal dafidy worspioy edxapiarhoas Luxev avrois Myr 
mitre € atrov mdvres, 
rolro ydp dori 7d alud pov ris Siabjxns 
7) rep ONNGY exxuvvduevoy els Apeoiw duapriGr 
Déyw Be duly, ob wh wlw Ax’ Apre 
ék rotrov rol yerfuaros rhs dumé\ov 
tos ris Hudpas dxelns Bray abrd wlvu 
Hed" duOv Kawdy bv rH faadelg 
ro rarpbs uov. 


Putting together the several accounts we get as the 
fullest form = 
‘Take, eat, 
this is my body which is [given] for you. 
Do this in remembrance of me. 


Drink ye all of it, 
for this is my blood of the covenant 

{ the new covenant in my blood 
which is shed { for many 

test 

for remission of sins. 
Do this, as often as ye drink it, in 
remembrance of me. 


[DO THIS.< 27 


APPRENDI B: 
THE MEANING OF IOIEIN, 


TovTo moueire els THY euhv dvauynow. 1 Cor. xi. 24, 25 [Luke xxii, Ig]. 

“‘The proposal to give these words a sacrificial meaning, and 
translate them, ‘Offer this, Sacrifice this, Offer this sacrifice,’ cannot 
be maintained. ; 

It has against it 

(1) the ordinary meaning of rot in N.T., in LXX, and in Greek 
literature generally ; 

(2) the authority of all the Greek Fathers, who knew their own 
language, knew the N. T. and the LXX, and understood the 
words as having the ordinary meaning, ‘Perform this action’; 

(3) the authority of the Zarly Liturgies, which do not use roety, or 
Jacere, when the bread and wine are offered, but mpoogépew or 
offerre, although the words of institution precede the oblation, 
and thus suggest movetv, or facere ,; 

(4) the authority of a large majority of commentators, ancient and 
modern, of the most various schools, who either make no com- 

. ment, as if the ordinary meaning were too obvious to need 
stating; or give the ordinary meaning without mentioning any 
other as worthy of consideration ; or expressly reject the sacri- 
ficial meaning ; 

(5) the testimony of the LXX, in which the various and frequent 
Hebrew words which mean ‘offer’ or ‘sacrifice’ are translated 
not by roeiy, but by mporpépew or avapépev, or the like; 

(6) the fact that here and in 1 Cor. xi, 24 the writer might easily 
have made the sacrificial meaning clear by using mpoogépew or 
dvaépey.”” Plummer on St. Luke xxii. 19. 


movety is used some 550 times in N.T., never in the sense of sacrifice. 
The nearest approach to this is in Matt. xxvi. 18, Heb. xi. 28, 


28 “DO HESS. 


mov Td maoxa. With this compare moeiy éoprqy (Acts xviii. 21), 
detrvov (Mk. vi. 21, &c.), d6xnv (Lk. v. 29), yduous (Mt. xxii. 2). 

In Mt. xxvi. 18 roeiy rd rdoxa Must mean ‘‘keep, celebrate the 
paschal feast,” not ‘‘sacrifice the paschal lamb,” which could not 
have been done in a private room. So it is constantly used in 
LXX, ¢.g., Ex. xii. 48, Num. ix, 2, 2 Kgs, xxiii. 21. Accordingly it 
is paralleled by ¢ayet 76 rdcxa in Mk. xiv. 14, Lk. xxii. 11. 


TovTo moire OCCurs about 20 times in N. T. (11 times in St. John's 
Gospel), and everywhere in the simple sense of ‘Do this,” e.g., 
John v. 16, 19, vii. 4. So in classical and LXX Greek. 7odro never 
refers to an object, always to an action, avré usually refers to an object. 

For acontrast between zroeiy and sacrificial words, see Heb. vii. 27. 


‘““rovetv Ovolay can be rendered ‘offer sacrifice,’ not because zrovety 
means ‘offer,’ but because it means ‘make,’ and to ‘make’ a sacrifice 
is to offer it.” Abbott, p. 9. 

“When mrovety seems to have a Sacrificial sense, it is only as the 
crystal appears rose-tinted when a rose is placed beside it, as ¢.g., 
Heb. vii. 27.” So Ex. x. 25, Levit. xv. 30, 2 Kgs. xvii. 32. ‘*‘ Here 
(1 Cor, xi. 24, 25) it is as Ex. xii, 28, otrws érotyoay.” Dr. Kay, 
Commentary on the two epistles of St. Paul to the Corinthians, 
p. 48. Kay quotes the R. C. Estius as saying, ‘‘ Non quod verbum 
facite sit idem quod sacrificate quomodo nonnulli illud interpretati 
sunt plane praeter mentem Scripturae.” 


Justin Martyr joins moet with dprov and zorypiov (not with an 
action). Dialogue with Trypho, 70: “It is evident that in this 
prophecy (Isa. xxxiii. 16) allusion is made to the bread which our 
Christ gave us zoeivy in remembrance of his being flesh . . . and to 
the cup which he gave us zoiy in remembrance of his own blood, 
with giving of thanks,” This might be translated “offer”; but 
might it not be translated ‘“‘ break” (of the bread) and “drink” (of 
the cup)? The word is evidently a remembrance of the phrase in 
St. Paul’s account of the institution, Casaubon understands the word 
as equivalent to evdoyety Kat etyapireiv, benedictione et gratiarum 
actione consecrare in sacramentum corporis Christi. See Kaye's 
Justin Martyr (3d ed.), page 94. 


“DOS THISS 29 


So in ch, 41: réros Tod Gprou THs evyapiorias dv els dvduvnow Tod wabous 
-.. WapedwxKe trovety. 

Ch. 117: ‘‘These sacrifices alone (prayers and thanksgivings— 
evxai kai evxapioriac) Christians received roceiy, to make or offer.” 

Bp. Gore, while urging all that can be said on the other side, thus 
concludes his note on the use of zoety, ‘‘On the whole there is not 
sufficient evidence to entitle us to say that roeiy bears the sacrificial 
sense in the New Testament.” Zhe Body of Christ, p. 315. 

The fullest examination of the use of the word is to be found in 
Dr. T. K. Abbott’s essay, ‘‘Do this in remembrance of me”: 
Should it be, *‘ Offer this”? 


If the moral character of Christ’s victorious sacrifice be realized, 
that it is His obedience unto death which we plead before God and 
for which we offer our glad thanksgiving, the dispute as to the exact 
force of roiro roetre will be seen to be of comparatively small impor- 
tance. 

I. ‘Offer this” would be an almost needed meaning if it were the 
Body (and Blood) as an external gift which was offered. This 
meaning it seems hardly possible to attach to the words in the 

’ face of all the contrary evidence as given above. 

2. To make the verb equal merely “Eat this,” ‘‘ Drink this,” is im- 
possible ; forthe second sentence would then mean, ‘“ Drink this 
[expressed by one word] in remembrance of me as often as ye 
drink it” [expressed by another word]. This translation also 
makes rtodro refer to the Bread and the Wine (rodré éorw 76 cGya, 
ToUTO TO ToTHpLov, TO aiua). 

3. ‘‘Perform this whole rite or ceremony” would be a perfectly 
legitimate translation, and fits in with the more spiritual idea 
of what it is which is pleaded. It is a Jas¢t act regarded in its 
moral aspect. This is not offered but commemorated. It is 
rejoiced in before God, and told, proclaimed, one to another, 
while its virtue is called forth and applied. It is pleaded by 
prayer and supplication—in a solemn and appointed ordinance, 
not merely by word as at the end of any prayer. 

The whole sacramental ceremony is a memorial before God. 
This seems to be exactly what our Prayer of Consecration says. 


30 


“DO) THISss 


We celebrate and make the memorial which Christ commanded, 
by means of the holy gifts which we offer, which represent the 
broken Body and the outpoured Blood, having in remembrance 
Christ’s blessed Passion and precious Death, His mighty Resur- 
rection and glorious Ascension. See Bp. Seabury, Sermons, 
vol. I, p. 147. 


“IN REMEMBRANCE OF ME.” 31 


APPENDIX C. 
THE MEANING OF ANAMNHSIZ. 


eis Thy éuhy dvduvnow, I Cor. xi. 24, 25 [Luke xxii. 19], to remind 
yourselves and others of the redemption which I have won by My 
death. : 

The Eucharist is to be a constant calling to mind of Him who 
redeemed man from the bondage of sin, as the Passover was an 
annual calling to mind of redemption from the bondage of Egypt. 
fix xi. 26, 27, xi. 8, 14. 

The only other passage in N. T. where the word occurs is Heb. 
X. 3, év avrais [Ovolas] dvduynos auaptiav kar’ évautév. This was a call- 
ing to mind of sins whereby men are put in remembrance of them 
by a divine institution. Comp. Num. v. 15 (where the verb is used). 
Westcott says that the Jewish sacrifices had an dvduyqow duapriay, they 
were instituted to keep fresh the thought of responsibility, while the 
Eucharist is instituted els thy éuhy dvduynow, to bring to men’s minds 
the recollection of the redemption which Christ has accomplished. 

The verb dvayiuvijioxw is found in the active, 1 Cor. iv. 17, 2 Tim. 
i. 6, of recalling to the minds of men; in the passive or middle, 
Mark xi. 21, xiv. 72, 2 Cor. vii. 15, Heb. x. 32, of men being 
reminded or remembering. 

So it is used in Wisd. xvi. 6 of reminding men. 

Num. x. 10, Levit. xxiv. 7, are the only instances of the use of the 
noun in LXX (beside the titles of Pss. xxxvii. and lxix.); in these it is 
apparently used of a reminding of Almighty God. (But Abbott 
understands them differently, pp. 27-30.) 

The dvduvnots duapriay in Heb. x. 3 was a solemn remembrance 
before God. 

pvnubcvvoy is the regular word for a sacrificial memorial before God 
in LXX (e.g., Ex. xxiii. 29, xxx. 16, Lev. ii. 2, 9, 16, vi. 15, comp. 
Acts x. 4), and this word is constantly used.in the liturgies of the 
eucharistic memorial made before God, but apparently dvduvnous is 
understood in them of our remembering. 


32 “SHEW THE LORD'S DEAT. 


APPENDIX D. 


THE MEANING OF KATAITEAAEIN. 


1 Cor. xi. 26, rdv Odvarov Tod Kuplov KarayyéddeTe Gxpt of EXOy. “Ye hand 
down from one to another the announcement of the Lord’s death 
till He come.” This corresponds with the commemoration at the 
Jewish annual passover in response to the question, What mean 
ye by this service? Ex. xii. 26. See Evans in the Speaker’s Com- 
mentary, and Abbott, p. 46. 

The verb occurs in sixteen other passages in N, T. (always used 
by St. Paul or St. Luke), and in every instance it clearly means to 
proclaim or to announce to men. 

In this same epistle, ii. 1, ix. 14; elsewhere by St. Paul, Renee 1.85 
Phil. i. 17, 18, Col. i. 28, Acts xiii, 38, xvii. 3, 23; by St. Luke, 
Acts iii, 24, iv. 2, xiii. 5, xv. 36, xvi. 17, 21, xvii. 13, xxvi. 23. 

It is used in the same sense in the liturgies, being joined with 
éporbyew (dvdoracv) and darexdéxecbar (rapovciar). 


“THE SACRIFICE OF PRAISE.” 33 


APPENDIX E. 
THE MEANING OF OrIA AINEZEQE. 


Heb. xiii. 15, dv avrod dvapépwpyev Ouolav aivécews dia mavrds TO Oe, 
TouT €or. Kaprov xeidéwy GuoroyobvTwy TO dvouare avrov. 

Whatever may have been the application of the ducla aivécews in 
the O. T. to the material oblation made as an expression of thanks- 
giving, here the rouvrécr: distinctly explains it as consisting in the 
words of thanksgiving which are the utterance (xaprdv) of the 
heart’s thankfulness. So in Hos. xiv. 2 (from which the phrase is 
taken) the lips (uttering praise) take the place of the animal 
sacrifices, 

When the phrase is taken into the liturgies it refers primarily to 
the words of Thanksgiving which accompany the breaking of the 
bread, especially the long Thanksgiving commemorating God’s 
dealings with man in Creation as well as Redemption. 

In the Roman rite ‘‘hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque 
omnibus” apparently is applied to the whole act, as itself a great 
edxapisria, remembering, subjectively and before God, Christ’s 
victorious sacrifice. 

«Eastern liturgies and early Roman sacramentaries alike testify 
that the so-called preface is an integral part of the Eucharistic 
offering. And from this it follows that the Eucharistic offering does 
not consist in the alleged mysterious offering of Christ’s Body and 
Blood by the priest alone, or by Christ Himself through the priest, but 
is first and foremost the Church’s own offering of praise and thanks- 
giving, ‘the fruit of the lips giving praise to God,’ the common 
offering of both priest and people.” J. R. Milne, Zhe Doctrine 
and Practice of the Eucharist, p. 99. 


34 THE CONSECRATION AND THE OBLATION. 


APPENDIDGHS 


THE CONNEXION BETWEEN THE CONSECRATION 
AND THE OBLATION. 


It is not merely that in the ancient liturgies the invocation follows 
the repetition of our Lord’s words of institution (asking that they, his- 
torically recited, may be made effectual), and follows also the verbal 
pleading of our Lord’s death, represented in the broken bread and 
outpoured wine. In reply to the urging of this order and its sig- 
nificance, it might be said that while we must w¢¢er different words 
of prayer one after another, God hears the prayer as a whole, and 
that for spiritual effect the words of institution and the invocation 
may be regarded as simultaneous. 

But there is the further fact, that the urfose of the invocation of 
the Holy Spirit is constantly stated to be this, that He may make the 
bread and wine to be the body and blood of Christ for our spiritual 
food, but not that we may have the body and blood of Christ to offer. 
See Brightman’s Eastern Liturgies. 

With the common Eastern prayers for the descent of the Holy 
Spirit upon the elements (already used for making the appointed 
memorial), that they may be made for us the spiritual food of Christ's 
body and blood, we may compare the prayer of the present Latin 
rite, that the elements may be carried to the heavenly altar, that so 
whoever shall partake of the body and blood of Christ may be filled 
with heavenly benediction and grace. The gifts to be so accepted 
can hardly be already the body and blood of Christ, for God is im- 
mediately before begged to accept them even as He vouchsafed to 
accept the gifts of Abel and the sacrifice of Abraham and that of 
Melchizedek. See the Western rites in Hammond’s Liturgies, p. 338. 

In the Eastern prayer the Spirit of God is asked to come down; in 
the Western prayer it is asked that the gifts may be carried up. In 
either case the effect looked for is the same, that, having been accepted 
by God, the sacred gifts may be endowed with spiritual virtue to 
apply to His people the benefits of the sacrifice they are pleading. 
See Gore, Body of Christ, p. 197, and Seabury’s Sermons, vol. I, pp. 
159, 160. 


THE OUTWARD AND THE INWARD PART. 35 


APPENDIX G. 


THE INWARD AND THE OUTWARD PART OF THE 
SACRAMENT EACH REAL IN ITS OWN SPHERE. 


The late Robert Isaac Wilberforce, whose writings have done 
much, directly and indirectly, to mould the theological thought of 
the last generation, assumes “‘ that the outward and yestele parts in 
the Holy Eucharist are really united by the act of consecration, 
so that to receive one is to receive the other,”* and affirms that 
to deny this (the inference, as well as the reality of the consecration) 
is to ‘‘reject that which is a cardinal feature of the Catholic Faith.” 
Such a denial, he contends, must be due either to the Zwinglian 
theory that ‘‘the Holy Eucharist was nothing in truth but an 
occaston, in which the faith of men obtained for them those blessings 
which are always equally accessible to the believer,” no gift of 
grace being bestowed in sacraments, the effect of which depended 
entirely upon the recipient's state of mind;+ or upon the 
Calvinistic theory that the sacraments were merely sea/s and 
pledges of gifts of grace which God was pleased to effect independ- 
ently of them, all depending on the intention of the Bestower, who, 
according to Calvin, limited his good will to ‘‘the elect.” 

Is this position sound ? May not the outward and the inward 
parts of the Eucharist be really linked together, but for a spiritual 
purpose, and so that only a spiritual power can lay hold of or be 
affected by the inward part? This spiritual power is what the 
Anglican formularies call ‘faith ;” { it is the action of the regenerate 
person living true to his regenerate life and putting its powers into 


* Sermons on the Holy Communion, ‘‘ The Consecration of the Holy 
Eucharist.” 

+ ‘‘ Thus much we must be sure to hold, that in the Supper of the Lord 
there is no vain ceremony, no’bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent.” 
First part of the Homily concerning the Sacrament. 

tSee Waggett, The Holy Eucharist, p. 29. 


(hWHA 


36. CHRIST'S PRESENCE REAL AND SPIRE. 


exercise (however feebly). The communicant by virtue of the 
Christ nature in him (by Baptism) perceives and feeds upon the 
- Christ nature presented to him (in the Eucharist). By ‘‘ the Christ 
nature” is meant that share in His sacred manhood which is com- 
municated to us as we are baptized into Christ and made members 
of His Body. The wicked, those who are not abiding in Christ, 
like those who have not been admitted into union with Him, do | 
not and cannot receive the inward part of the Eucharist. There is 
not that in them to which it corresponds.* Theydo not merely fail 
to receive the blessing of the sacrament, but they are incapable of 
receiving its inner part. They receive the symbols and what should 
be the means of conveying it. Zus they are guilty of sacrilege, not 
by actually receiving the Lord’s Body to their hurt, but by coming in 
contact with the outward sign, and not in and through it discerning 
the Lord’s Body. This is to be guilty of the Body and Blood of the 
Lord—z.¢., guilty of an offence respecting the Body and Blood of 
the Lord. > 

So St. Augustine says, ‘He who abides not in Christ, and has not 
Christ abiding in him, without a doubt neither eats His flesh nor 
drinks His blood, but rather eats and drinks to his judgment the 
sacrament of so great a thing.” Tract xxvi. in Joan. vi. 

Such a position does not in the least deny the Reality of our 
Lord’s presence. It is vea/, while at the same time spiritual. It is 
objective, if the ambiguous term is to be used; that is, it exists 
independently of our subjective perception or appreciation of it.+ 
But it need not be so linked with the outward elements that when 
they are taken physically, it is received spiritually. Such a doctrine 
seems to imply that there is a physical union between the two parts 
of the sacrament, and that the inward part is not only spiritually 
but physically received by the communicant. Then there naturally, 
inevitably, follow all those consequences, which are contemplated 
in the cautelae of the Roman missal, and also those uses of the 


* Comp. John iii. 3. .‘‘ Our natural powers cannot realize that which is 
essentially spiritual. A new vision is required for the objects of a new 
order.” Westcott. : 

+ The risen Lord was manifested only to disciples. But His risen body 
was not a creation of their imagination. 


TRANSUBSTANTIATION. 37 


sacrament apart from Communion which obtain widely and have 
become popular in the Roman Church, such as reservation for 
worship and exposition and benediction. 

All this follows from a doctrine of Transubstantiation, which 
need not be grossly material, but which makes the inward and the 
outward parts of the sacrament really oxe thing, whatever may be 
the preposition (sub, trans, con, in) used to denote the relation of 
the inward to the outward part. The inward is practically thought 
of as linked to the outward part, as the soul of man is linked to his 
body; whereas the truer analogy is the union of our higher 
regenerate being (what St. Paul ordinarily speaks of as ‘‘ the spirit ”) 
with the natural framework of man’s being, material and 
immaterial. 

It is sometimes said that the Anglican doctrine of the Real Pres- 
ence carries with it all the consequences of the Roman doctrine of 
Transubstantiation, only differing from it in verbal or philosophical 
definition. But it seems to be any such theory of actual identifi- 
cation which is repudiated in the Anglican formularies, and declared 
to ‘‘have given occasion to many superstitions.” (Art. 28.) 

If the inward part of the Eucharist is in any literal sense the Body 
and Blood of Christ, only ‘‘ present after the manner of a spirit,” 
the consequences of Transubstantiation seem to be involved. But 
if His Body and Blood stand for the sacred manhood of Christ, the 
spiritual reality which was communicated to us as we were made 
members of His Body in Baptism, represented now under the terms 
Body and Blood, which set forth different purposes or aspects of the 
gift, and which the bread and wine symbolize; then there is no 
localizing of Christ, no possibility of injury to His glorified humanity 
by external accident or outrage. Grievous irreverence there may 
be in treating lightly the signs of so sacred a gift. But the inner 
reality of the sacrament exists only in the spiritual sphere. ' 

Language of the Fathers, such as seems to zdenzify the Body and 
Blood of Christ with the bread and wine, is evidently often figurative 
and rhetorical. For instance, St. Chrysostom speaks of Christ having 
given us “ Not only to see Him, but even to touch and eat Him, and 
fix our teeth in his flesh” (Hom. xlvi. on John vi. 52) ; of the com- 
municant touching Christ’s flesh with his tongue (Hom. xxvii. on 


38 RHETORICAL LANGUAGE. 


1 Cor. xi. 27,; of our seeing “ the Lord sacrificed, and laid upon the 
altar, and the priest standing and praying over the victim, and all 
' .the worshippers empurpled with that precious blood” (De Sacerdotio, 
III, 4). 

As Mr. Stephens, the translator of the last-mentioned book in the 
Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, says, No controversy had then 
arisen about the Sacrament, and therefore ‘‘ writers could freely use 
expressions which in later times would have been liable to objection 
or misconstruction.” One might compare George Herbert’s lan- 
guage: ‘‘The Country Parson . . . especially at Communion-times, 
is in great confusion, as being not only to receive God, but to break 
and administer Him.” Country Parson, ch. xxii. 

In these and many such passages Chrysostom and others speak 
in the same sort of rhetorical language which Hooker (about whose 
meaning there could be no doubt) employed when he wrote: ‘The 
very letter of the word of Christ giveth plain security [amid many 
difficult questions that may be asked} that these mysteries do as 
nails fasten us to His very Cross, that by them we draw out, as 
touching efficacy, force, and virtue, even the blood of His gored side, 
in the wounds of our Redeemer we there dip our tongues, we are 
dyed red both within and without, our hunger is satisfied and our 
thirst for ever quenched.” cc/. Pol., V. Ixvii. 12. 

With this passage from Hooker may be quoted the less familiar 
words of Bp. Seabury : 

““We may see in what sense the consecrated or eucharistised bread 
and wine are the body and blood of Christ. They are so sacramen- 
tally, or by representation—changed in their qualities, not in their 
substance. They continue bread and wine in their nature; they 
become the body and blood of Christ in signification and mystery— 
bread and wine to our senses; the body and blood of Christ to our 
understanding and faith—bread and wine in themselves: the life- 
giving body and blood of Christ in power and virtue; that is, by the 
appointment of Christ, and through the operation of the Holy Ghost; 
and the faithful receive in them the efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice and 
death to all intents and purposes.” Sermons, vol. I., p. 157. 

The real meaning of the term ‘‘Spiritual” as applied to the pres- 
ence of our Lord is not “after the manner of a spirit,” but ‘fora 


MEANING OF “SPIRITUAL.” 39 


spiritual purpose.” * His Body and Blood are spiritual food, nourish- 
ing not our physical or our intellectual, but our spiritual nature. 
Nor are they spiritual food in the immaterial sense only, so that a 
man by his natural being having a spiritual principle, an immaterial 
soul, could receive them, ora devil, as distinct from an animal ; but 
they are spiritual food in the mora/ sense, as being the nourishment 
of our spiritual faculties on their moral side. 

It is in this sense that with scarcely an exception the ancient 
liturgies pray that the Holy Spirit may sanctify the elements that they 
may become Zo ws, or for our hallowing and nourishment, the Body 
and Blood of Christ. Sothe Roman missal (nobis Corpus et Sanguis 
fiat). 

It is the converse of this prayer which we use when we ask ‘‘that 
we receiving these Thy creatures of bread and wine . . . may be 
partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood.” The baldness of 
the Scottish prayer, ‘‘ that they may become the Body and Blood of 
Thy most dearly beloved Son,” is without precedent. See Dowden, 
Annotated Scottish Communion Office, pp. 15, 216, Gore, Body of 
Christ, p. 135. 


*“ Any thing or process, whether material or no, is, according to the New 
Testament use of the word, ‘spiritual’ in which the Holy Spirit, or 
generally spiritual purpose, effectively manifests itself, and which it 
effectively controls.” Gore, Body of Christ, p. 126, 


mi SUNDAY MORNING SERVICES. 


APPENDIX. 
THE ARRANGEMENT OF SERVICES. 


It is a question of real difficulty to decide on the best arrange- 
ment and order of Sunday morning services, with reference especially 
to the celebration of Holy Communion. Several considerations 
have to be weighed. 

1. We desire on the one hand to give the Eucharist a prominent 
place, as the Lord’s service which should characterize the Lord’s 
Day. 

2. On the other hand, we recognize that many in our Sunday 
forenoon congregations are unprepared for constant participation 
in this highest act of Christian worship. Some are not baptized. 
Some are very little instructed in the faith. We cannot encourage 
or practically oblige such persons to be constantly present at the 
celebration of the holy mysteries without receiving; nor can we 
drive them away from the Sunday forenoon service, which is their 
chief opportunity for joining in Christian worship and for receiving 
Christian instruction. 

3. We desire to make it possible, at any rate, that communicants 
who desire to observe the old rule may receive fasting. 

4. A broad distinction between an early celebration of the 
Eucharist for communion, and a later one for worship, at which 
persons are not expected to receive, is altogether contrary to the 
principles of eucharistic worship as laid down in this Charge, and 
to the best traditions of the Church. 

5. It is certainly not the intention of the Prayer-book that 
Morning Prayer should be systematically omitted or slighted. 

In large city churches, where there is a staff of clergymen, and 
several services can be held at different hours, these difficulties are 
lessened, not altogether removed. In country churches the problem 
is distinctly perplexing. I can only urge that due weight may be 
given to a// the considerations involved. 


FASTING RECEPTION. 41 


APPENDIX I. 
FASTING COMMUNION. 


Closely connected with the problem of the best Arrangement of 
Services is the question of Fasting Communion. Bp. Jeremy 
Taylor well expresses the general mind of the Christian Church 
with reference to this practice. ‘‘Let us receive the consecrated 
elements with all devotion and humility of body and spirit; and do 
this honour to it, that it be the first food we eat and the first 
beverage we drink that day, unless it be in the case of sickness or 
other great necessity; and that your body and soul both be pre- 
pared to its reception with abstinence from secular pleasures, that 
you may better have attended fastings and preparatory prayers.” 
(Holy Living, ch. IV. x. 9.) 

1. That fasting reception is a pious and reverent custom recom- 
‘mended by the practice of the Church from very early times is 
undisputed. (See St. Augustine’s Letter to Januarius, liv.) 

2. But the horror felt and expressed in the early Church at the 
idea of Communion after food seems to have been associated with 
the fear of a surfeit. They had not in view a very light repast. 
(See Socrates, Eccl. Hist. v. 22, comp. St. Chrysostom, Hom, xxvii. 
on I Cor. xi.) 

3. The custom cannot be regarded as obligatory upon us by 
reason of ancient canons not formally repealed. 

4. Nor should it in my judgment be allowed to interfere with (1) . 
regularity in receiving the sacrament, though a desire to observe 
the custom might legitimately affect to some extent the frequency 
of reception; nor (2) with health—as distinct from mere incon- 
venience or discomfort; nor (3) with the right fulfilment of duties 
or ministry. 

5. With these cautions I would urge the observance of the custom 
or rule, wherever it is practicable; and knowing that actually it is 
not practicable in many cases (as with persons living on a farm, 


42 DESIRABLE BUT NOT OBLIGATORY. 


where much work must be done early, and at a distance from the 
church, where the service which these persons can attend often 
cannot be held before 10.30), I would recommend (though con- 
scious that this will be regarded with scorn by some who hold 
rigorously to the rule) that the rule may be observed by taking 
only a very light refreshment, what is really necessary, before 
Communion. (Wordsworth, The Holy Communion, p. 159, Note.) 

It seems to me worth while to quote zz extenso a declaration on 
this subject unanimously adopted by the Bishops of the Northern 
province in England in 1899. Bp. Westcott, it was stated in the 
House, ‘‘spent very great thought and care upon the drawing up 
of this document.” 

“ Our attention has been called to the teaching of various manuals 
of instruction and devotion which are widely circulated among 
members of our Church, and to special pastoral directions, in which 
fasting reception is made one of the things ‘required of them who 
come to the Lord’s Supper,’ though it is not included in the require- 
ments set out in the Catechism, and nowhere enjoined in the Prayer- 
book or in any authoritative document of our Church. 

“Weare very far from desiring to lessen in any degree that devout 
reverence with which the Sacrament of Holy Communion ought to be 
approached ; or to discourage fasting reception where it is found to 
provide a salutary self-discipline. We readily acknowledge that a 
custom which has prevailed from early times throughout the Church 
generally till the sixteenth century, and which has been advocated 
as helpful to the spiritual life by many teachers of our own Church, 
is always likely to find wide acceptance among us. At the same 
time to describe reception without fasting as a sin is wholly unwar- 
ranted by the teaching of Holy Scripture, and is, therefore, incon- 
sistent with the ordination vow. We further hold that there are 
grave reasons both from the history of the custom and from its 
essential character against making the practice of fasting reception 
one of obligation. 

“‘1, The circumstances of the institution of the Holy Eucharist 
exclude the thought that taking food shortly before disqualifies for 
reception. The same conclusion follows from St. Paul’s treatment 
of this Sacrament in I Cor. xi. Nor is the obligation of fasting 


ORIGIN OF THE CUSTOM. 43 


reception supported by any authority of Scripture or by any Apostolic 
ordinance. The conjecture of Augustine that it was one of the points 
which St. Paul ‘set in order’ (1 Cor. xi. 24) rests on no historical 
foundation. 

‘‘The custom of fasting reception would naturally arise when the 
service was transferred from a late hour in the evening (according 
to our reckoning) to an early hour in the morning. The cause of 
this change is not recorded. It may have been made in the Gentile 
Churches, in which the Jewish reckoning of time was superseded by 
the Roman, in order to place the service at the beginning of the 
Roman day as the institution had been at the beginning of the Jewish 
day. But not to insist on any special explanation of the origin of the 
change, it is enough to observe that there is no reason for supposing 
that it was made in ‘order to secure a fast from the beginning of the 
day to the time of Communion. 

“When the custom of fasting reception was once established even 
in a limited range, it was likely to spread owing to the general tend- 
ency of the Oriental mind towards ascetic practices. But the adop- 
tion of the custom was ultimately accompanied by serious evils. 
Infrequent reception and non-communicating attendance, which can 
not be wholly dissociated from fasting Communion, came to be 
general; and these customs find no support in the teaching and 
practice of the primitive Church. 

“2, Fasting, again, is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. 
It is valuable or not according as it fulfils the proposed object. It-may 
be employed to obtain for the communicant the fullest command 
over his powers of attention and devotion. But it is evident that the 
fitness of fasting for obtaining this result depends in a large degree 
upon climate, domestic habits, age, and the like ; and exhaustion, as 
we all know, is itself in most cases fatal to spiritual self-command. 
And more than this; while the spontaneous combination of prayer 
and fasting corresponds with a spiritual instinct, it is contrary to the 
tenor of Apostolic teaching, and indeed of the teaching of the Lord 
Himself, to make the observance of a period of material abstinence 
a necessary condition of participating in the highest spiritual service 
of the Church. The inherent discordance between the custom of 
fasting reception and its object becomes still more obvious, if fasting 


44 FASTING RECEPTION. 


is made obligatory from a fixed hour, when it is remembered that 
the duration of the fast and its physical effects will necessarily vary 
‘in individual cases, and are practically indeterminate. Nor can it 
be overlooked that the different conditions of town and country 
parishes introduce serious difficulties in the uniform application of 
any such rule. It may be added that so far as fasting reception is 
advocated on the ground of reverence for the Sacrament, the argu- 
ments have a widerrange. They may be used with equal, and some 
will think with greater, force in favour of fasting after reception. 

“Such considerations show that fasting reception is one of those 
matters of ecclesiastical discipline which every ‘ particular or national 
Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish’ with a view 
to the spiritual health of its members. And thatthe English Church 
since the Reformation has ceased to require fasting before Holy 
Communion, leaving the matter to individual liberty, appears to be 
clear from the fact that there is no direction upon the subject in those 
passages of the Prayer-book in which the requisites of individual 
preparation are plainly specified, nor in any of our authoritative 
documents. If it be urged that there was no need to prescribe the 
observance in 1549, the same cannot be said of 1662. Inother words 
our Church has virtually applied to this matter the principle of St. 
Paul’s teaching on a similar question: ‘Let not him that eateth set 
at nought him that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not judge 
him that eateth ; for God hath received him . . . Let each man be 
fully persuaded in his own mind.’ (Rom. xiv. 3, 5.)” 

The Guardian, May 10, 1899, p. 655. 

A similar declaration was adopted by the Bishops of the Southern 
province in 1893. See Guardian, May 10, 1893, p. 769. 

Comp. Pastoral Letter of our House of Bishops in 1895, Journal, 
p. 386, and Abp. Benson’s charge, Zhe Seven Gifts, p. 97. 


RESERV ATION. ! 45 


APPENDIXGI1€ 
RESERVATION OF THE SACRAMENT. 


Reference is continually made to the Pastoral Letter of the House 
of Bishops at the General Convention of 1895, as giving permission 
for the practice of Reservation. Those who so refer to the Letter 
can hardly recollect what it actually said. 

“The practice of reserving the Sacrament is not sanctioned by 
the law of this Church, though the Ordinary may, in cases of 
extreme necessity, authorize the reserved Sacrament to be carried 
to the sick. We are deeply pained to know that any among us 
adopt a use of the reserved elements, such as the Article condemns 
as ‘not ordained by Christ.’ 

“ Whatever theological motive, or metaphysical meaning, may be 
assigned to the rubric in the Communion Office, whatever his- 
torical colouring may be given to it, as a study of liturgics, no 
ingenuity of evasion can turn the plain ‘shall not be carried out 
of the Church’, ‘shall reverently eat and drink the same’, into an 
authorization of the use of the remaining elements for a service of 
benediction, or for purposes of adoration. Most earnestly do we 
appeal to the Clergy to consider the wrong of such disobedience 
alike to the letter and the spirit of our ecclesiastical law.” 

The ‘cases of extreme necessity” were certainly intended by the 
great body of Bishops who accepted the Letter to refer primarily 
to such emergencies as the Yellow Fever pestilence at Memphis in 
1878, and the earlier visitations of Cholera in Leeds and London, 
on each of which occasions Reservation of the Sacrament for the 
sick and dying was allowed by the diocesan. 


What has been said on p. 21 of the Charge concerning the actual 
provision of the American Prayer-book for the Communion of the 
Sick (even in extreme cases) is sufficient to show the law of our Church 
on the subject ;—a law that (as I have said) might, in my judgment, 


46 ENGLISH AUTHORITY. 


well be modified, with proper safeguards. But since supposed 
English authority for Reservation (inherited by us) is frequently 
- claimed,* it may be well to add a word about two such claims. 

1. The provision for Reservation in the Latin Prayer-book put 
forth in 1560 under Queen Elizabeth is frequently cited as showing 
that the practice was not forbidden, and existed side by side with 
the service for the private celebration of the Sacrament, inserted in 
the Prayer-book of 1552. 

The untrustworthy character of this Latin Prayer-book was fully 
exposed at the Hearing before the English Archbishops. (See 
report in Guardian for July 30, 1899, p. 1028.) 

Moreover, the rubric found in that book (apparently foisted into it 
without authority, and altogether dropped in the next edition of the 
Latin Prayer-book published twelve years later) was not a repro- 
duction of the rubric of the Prayer-book of 1549, permitting 
Reservation for the Communion ofa sick person on the same day 
with the Open Communion in the church; but only a provision that 
immediately after the public service, as a continuation thereof, the 
priest might adjourn, with some of the congregation, to the sick 
man’s house, and there give Communion to these persons and to 
the sick man. Mox finita coena, una cum aliquot ex his gut 
intersunt, 1bit ad aegrotum et primo communicabit cum illis gut 
assistunt aegroto et interfuerunt coenae, et postremo cum infirmo. 
Liturgical Services. Queen Elizabeth. (Parker Society) p. 404. 
Comp. Procter and Frere’s New History of the Book of Common 
Prayer (1901), pp. 118 sg. 

2. The sixth rubric at the end of the present English Order for 
Holy Communion (the second in our Prayer-book), ordering the 
reverent consumption of any remaining Bread and Wine that had 
been consecrated, was doubtless inserted in 1662 in order to guard 


* Z. v.,in a pamphlet by the Rev. John Wright, advocating Reservation 
of the Blessed Sacrament for the Sick (Young Churchman Co., 1903), 
which gives the substance of a larger English treatise on the subject by 
the Rev. J. W. Kempe. Dr. Wright gives a list which he calls ‘* approxi- 
mate rather than exhaustive” of churches in 30 different dioceses -where 
Reservation was at that time practised. I have been told that in one 
Eastern diocese there are now (1907) no less than 15 churches where 
Reservation is the custom. 


RESERVATION NOT AUTHORIZED. 47 


against any irreverent use thereof, and was not aimed at the prac- 
tice of Reservation. But the question is whether Cosin and the 
other revisers of that date could have drawn the rubric in such 
terms, which plainly exclude Reservation, if they had known that 
Reservation was still lawful (as is contended), side by side with the 
private celebration. 

It is true that Thorndike, writing some ten years after the Savoy 
Conference, in which he took part, and at which this rubric was 
adopted, seems to take for granted the lawfulness of reserving the 
Sacrament from one public celebration to another for the purpose 
of giving communion to the sick. ‘The Church is to endeavour 
the celebrating of the Eucharist so frequently that it may be 
reserved to the next communion. For in the meantime it ought to 
be so ready for them that pass into the other world, that they need 
not stay for the consecration of it on purpose for every one.” 
Reformation of the Church of England better than that of the 
Council of Trent, xxxix. 4. But he may mean that this ought to 
be the rule, rather than that it was intended or lawful according to 
the existing Prayer-book. 


Going behind the English book, the 13th canon of the Council of 
Nicaea is sometimes quoted as if it gave an express order that pro- 
vision should be made (by Reservation) that there should be no 
risk of the Church failing in any case to have in readiness the 
Viaticum for any one in danger of death. The canon has no refer- 
ence to any such question. It is concerned simply with the 
restoration of penitents to Communion before death. See Canons 
of the First Four Councils, in Greek and English (Parker, 1867), 
p. 15, and Dr, Bright’s /Vofes on the same (Clarendon Press, 1882), 


P- 43. ° 


 y 


922266200 


oes AION 


soueigry Ayssoatuf 4NG 


—_ 


